Allowed

Md. Nadeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024BAIL/8831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held the applicant for criminal offence under IPC Sections 170, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 was fit for bail given his no criminal history and magisterial trial, imposing standard bail conditions to prevent tampering.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail to the applicant upon personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensuring court attendance.

Md. Nadeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60369

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8831 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Md. Nadeem

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Bux Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The offence is triable by Magistrate. The applicant has been implicated due to enmity. There is no public witness to the alleged recovery from the applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 24.6.2024.

¶9

3.It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the offence is triable by Magistrate, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

6. Let the applicant Md. Nadeem, involved in Case Crime No.302 of 2024 under sections 170, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471

¶13

I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Rudauli, district Faizabad/Ayodhya, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 kkb/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Md. Nadeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Nadeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Rupa Samajdar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Mamta Sinha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Firoj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Md. Nadeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Jairam Rajpoot vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Padma Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another